The Motion Picture Association of America filed a response on Tuesday to a motion to return Megaupload users’ files locked up in the United States v. Kim Dotcom case. In an Eastern Virginia District Court, the MPAA asked that if the court grants users the ability to retrieve their files from the locked-down servers, no illegally downloaded copyrighted material be let free in the process.

The original motion the MPAA responded to was brought by a man named Kyle Goodwin. Goodwin stored videos he made of local sporting events on an external hard drive and on Megaupload’s online file locker. His hard drive crashed just days before Megaupload was taken down by the Feds in January.

Goodwin is just one user who lost irreplaceable files in the shutdown of Megaupload. TorrentFreak noted that “among these users are many people in the US military who used the site to share pictures and videos with family. Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom previously informed TorrentFreak that at least 15,634 soldiers had accounts at Megaupload.”

At the same time, Carpathia, the server company contracted out by Megaupload to store all the files that users uploaded, has been hurting under the cost of keeping such massive amounts of data without Megaupload being able to pay its rent. The company asked the court for protective measures until it decides whether to junk the user data or give it back.

While claiming to be sympathetic to the plight of legitimate users, the MPAA said that it is essential that any retrieval process "include a procedure that ensures that any materials the users access and copy or download are not files that have been illegally uploaded to their accounts, given that MPAA Members and other rights holders are certain to own the copyrights in many of the files stored on the servers."

The MPAA’s demands will make returning files to users difficult, given their qualifications. "In addition," the MPAA wrote, "in no event should any Megaupload defendants or their representatives—who have not generally appeared in this proceeding, and who are not subject to the control and supervision of the Court—be allowed to access the Mega Servers under such a mechanism designed for the benefit of third party Megaupload users."

58 Reader Comments

Why? So long as it's the owner of the copyrighted work doing the downloading, it's not illegal to backup your works online.

As of yet, I'm not entirely sure it's illegal to backup a copyrighted work you don't own the copyright to (aka upload an ISO of a DVD you bought for backup) so long as you don't share it with others (aka distribution).

So, does this mean that the MPAA want absolute proof that every double-damned file in someone's uploaded archive was created by that person alone, that not ONE file in ANY part of the archive is by someone else, before they'll let him have it back? oO

Also, how the hell are they expecting Megaupload to distinguish legit from infringed material? They should be made to demonstrate their own ability to do that before being allowed to demand it of others.

Why? So long as it's the owner of the copyrighted work doing the downloading, it's not illegal to backup your works online.

As of yet, I'm not entirely sure it's illegal to backup a copyrighted work you don't own the copyright to (aka upload an ISO of a DVD you bought for backup) so long as you don't share it with others (aka distribution).

Darn-it, beat me to that. But it's very much a how do you quickly tell what is 'good' and what is 'bad' kind of thing.

Why? So long as it's the owner of the copyrighted work doing the downloading, it's not illegal to backup your works online.

Presumably the MPAA meant "copyrighted and belonging to someone else".

Akemi wrote:

As of yet, I'm not entirely sure it's illegal to backup a copyrighted work you don't own the copyright to (aka upload an ISO of a DVD you bought for backup) so long as you don't share it with others (aka distribution).

I was under the impression that courts have rejected "space-shifting" arguments, unlike timeshifting (DVR's and such) which is explicitly legal. IANAL.

So, does this mean that the MPAA want absolute proof that every double-damned file in someone's uploaded archive was created by that person alone, that not ONE file in ANY part of the archive is by someone else, before they'll let him have it back? oO

Correct, by initializing a hash verification check system on each file uploaded and directly from the original uploader all and all proof given if hash file is backed up since originally created using any type of rip/burn/backup software at the time.

Also, how the hell are they expecting Megaupload to distinguish legit from infringed material? They should be made to demonstrate their own ability to do that before being allowed to demand it of others.

Thanks, fixed.

Also, distinguishing legit from infringed material is one of those qualifications mentioned in the article that will make this agreement difficult if not impossible to bring to fruition.

Why? So long as it's the owner of the copyrighted work doing the downloading, it's not illegal to backup your works online.

Presumably the MPAA meant "copyrighted and belonging to someone else".

Akemi wrote:

As of yet, I'm not entirely sure it's illegal to backup a copyrighted work you don't own the copyright to (aka upload an ISO of a DVD you bought for backup) so long as you don't share it with others (aka distribution).

I was under the impression that courts have rejected "space-shifting" arguments, unlike timeshifting (DVR's and such) which is explicitly legal. IANAL.

The courts have upheld the right to make backup copies. Making a ISO of a DVD in no way circumvents CSS.

So, does this mean that the MPAA want absolute proof that every double-damned file in someone's uploaded archive was created by that person alone, that not ONE file in ANY part of the archive is by someone else, before they'll let him have it back? oO

Correct, by initializing a hash verification check system on each file uploaded and directly from the original uploader all and all proof given if hash file is backed up since originally created using any type of rip/burn/backup software at the time.

So, if I had a large collection of digitized family photos, and one small folder of pictures I'd randomly collected from the Web, and I'd archived that whole collection and placed the zip file up on MegaUpload, they'd not let me get back my 2 gigs worth of family photos because of 1 meg of fan-site DrWho pictures stored in the same zip file? Please tell me the MPAA have NOT made things that horribly strict?

If that is the case, then the bone they've thrown us is worse than useless.

At the end of the day the funny part is people never turn to us as users and say "let's be more responsible for our own actions so that shit like this doesn't happen". Instead everybody's a lawyer talking about how unfair and impossible everything is.

It's so damn trivial that they even care if unauthorized material is accessed there anyways. Point is it would only be available to the person who uploaded it, if its copyrighted material they likely already have it stored somewhere else anyways or they have easy access to it. Even if somehow neither of those were true, the amount of people who would retrieve that material from MegaUpload is of very very small harm to the MPAA. And furthermore it would be limited because only a complete fool would download an unauthorized copyrighted file from that now, considering the circumstances. Hardly anyone would bother.

The only people they're harming are the ones who have legitimate stuff, even with this saying they'd have no problem with it, they're causing way more hassle than it needs to be. They're fighting over loose change in an old couch.

It's so damn trivial that they even care if unauthorized material is accessed there anyways. Point is it would only be available to the person who uploaded it, if its copyrighted material they likely already have it stored somewhere else anyways or they have easy access to it.

If everyone had a backup of their data then there would be no need to make this data accessible again.

It's so damn trivial that they even care if unauthorized material is accessed there anyways. Point is it would only be available to the person who uploaded it, if its copyrighted material they likely already have it stored somewhere else anyways or they have easy access to it.

If everyone had a backup of their data then there would be no need to make this data accessible again.

I specifically said copyrighted material though. I was referring to the material that the MPAA/RIAA are fighting over. Anyone who uploaded a movie or song on there (the ones the MPAA/RIAA are worried about, not your home movies or pictures or your cousin singing at your wedding), especially "unauthorized", either has it stored somewhere else or has easy access to getting it somewhere else. It's not like people could just go trolling for old MegaUpload links and downloading illegit stuff again, only the uploader could get it. If they got it once and put it on MegaUpload then they obviously don't need MegaUpload as a source to obtain that material.

At the end of the day the funny part is people never turn to us as users and say "let's be more responsible for our own actions so that shit like this doesn't happen". Instead everybody's a lawyer talking about how unfair and impossible everything is.

Well, among other issues, the MPAA and RIAA have shown themselves to be idiotically unreasonable regarding what constitutes infringement.

See: Cat video with crappily-recorded music in the background, removing videos they uploaded and claiming Youtube doesn't do enough, suing people without bothering to see if the person can even reasonably be considered to be infringing, crippling fair-use by disallowing specifically-legal uses for education etc.

Since the MPAA and RIAA refuse to be reasonable, the benefit of the doubt should go to the citizenry.

Innocent until PROVEN GUILTY? This case is now 100% wrong on every level.

The MPAA should be invited to PROVE that any of their clients copyright interests will actually be violated if MegaUpload is restored to service. And of course, they must PROVE this without access to the servers contents, because they have to PROVE that their own access to said materials would not itself potentially violate the copyright interests of others. Or are they incapable of violating copyright because they are not merely peons?

The MPAA needs to burn in a fire.

The judges overseeing the case need to grow a pair, and nullify any standing these MPAA jackasses have with the court.

We need to get out our pitchforks and remind our public servants who they are sworn to serve.

It's so damn trivial that they even care if unauthorized material is accessed there anyways. Point is it would only be available to the person who uploaded it, if its copyrighted material they likely already have it stored somewhere else anyways or they have easy access to it.

If everyone had a backup of their data then there would be no need to make this data accessible again.

Erm, a lot of this data is backups.

HydrogenAlpha wrote:

Also, how the hell are they expecting Megaupload to distinguish legit from infringed material? They should be made to demonstrate their own ability to do that before being allowed to demand it of others.

First of all, a federal officer must be present when they insert a reverse-barbed catheter with an integral infringement detector through your pee-hole and keep shoving until it reaches your copyright gland, where it auto-expands like an IUD and deploys the "Intellectual Property Probe", or I-PP, which compares the ratio of "P" in parts-per-petabyte to the Binary-Midichlorian, as PPPP:BM, AKA "ratio of infringement". To get an accurate reading, the reverse-barbed catheter extraction must take place in one fluid motion, ripping your dick off and distracting you from the federal officer subjecting you to surprise buttsex while at the same time lifting your wallet. The entire procedure is so specific it is now known as "mega-mega-megauploading".THEN, and only then, can the PPPP:BM ratio be extruded through a stuxnet-laden centrifuge to an explosively satisfactory level of exponential increase. Whatever that number is, it is placed just after the US Dollar symbol and added to the MPAAs total amount of political contributions for the year-to-date (minus Wisconsin, because fuck them) to determine exactly what you owe, which you should fill in on line 5b.

Why? So long as it's the owner of the copyrighted work doing the downloading, it's not illegal to backup your works online.

Presumably the MPAA meant "copyrighted and belonging to someone else".

Akemi wrote:

As of yet, I'm not entirely sure it's illegal to backup a copyrighted work you don't own the copyright to (aka upload an ISO of a DVD you bought for backup) so long as you don't share it with others (aka distribution).

I was under the impression that courts have rejected "space-shifting" arguments, unlike timeshifting (DVR's and such) which is explicitly legal. IANAL.

Wouldn't that mean people with photographic memories wouldn't be allowed to read books or watch movies?

I would be OK with the MPAA partaking of the delicious cookies I have in my kitchen. Of course, my kitchen is filled with rabid wolverines, so... good luck with that.

That's about an equivalent situation. The MPAA says that people could have their files, but only if their prohibitively expensive and time-wasting caveats are followed. Seriously guys, have some damn cookies.

YES!!! A win against the MPAA; stuff I make is my own. woohoo... ummm, wait what, how did you know that was mine and not yours? Did you just infringe my right to my own works; now I need to take a look at your servers and verify you(MPAA) have no backups of this...

In the effort to prove the material is not infringing before they return, the must review it. Does this mean they run metrics against every file to determine the amount of possibly infringing material it contains? Who do we allow to verify that user X didn't just record some movie with their video camera (as its metrics won't match the original or conversions due to many factors in remotely recorded video)? What if a users stored data is private (a backup in the case of Goodwin, or more personal for others)?

I feel as though this will turn badly quickly due to these and more questions. "Oh hello user Y, we are returning these privately recorded videos and photos of you and your [wife, husband, whoever]. -By the way, video whatever was pretty hot. Let me know if you are if you'd care to join my in my $4000/night hotel suite while I'm in town.-"

Why? So long as it's the owner of the copyrighted work doing the downloading, it's not illegal to backup your works online.

Presumably the MPAA meant "copyrighted and belonging to someone else".

Akemi wrote:

As of yet, I'm not entirely sure it's illegal to backup a copyrighted work you don't own the copyright to (aka upload an ISO of a DVD you bought for backup) so long as you don't share it with others (aka distribution).

I was under the impression that courts have rejected "space-shifting" arguments, unlike timeshifting (DVR's and such) which is explicitly legal. IANAL.

Wouldn't that mean people with photographic memories wouldn't be allowed to read books or watch movies?

I think the intent of this is to ensure that each user only downloads those files that he/she uploaded and that there isn't a "run on the bank" so to speak where the general internet has one last free-for-all buffet of downloading.

Now do I agree with them? Absolutely not. Maybe when they discover the virtue of reasonableness then we can too. Until then this battle, I fear, will go on perpetually.

So is the MPAA intending to have a team of rights holders examining each file and saying "Yea" or (more likely) "Nay"? What about an appeals process when you disagree with the assessment of your content? What about those people who used MegaUpload to store their legitimate backups?

This is just the MPAA saying "We're good guys, we're on the user's side. But no".

What's the MPAA even doing there? Isn't this a case filed by the Department of Justice?

Why? So long as it's the owner of the copyrighted work doing the downloading, it's not illegal to backup your works online.

As of yet, I'm not entirely sure it's illegal to backup a copyrighted work you don't own the copyright to (aka upload an ISO of a DVD you bought for backup) so long as you don't share it with others (aka distribution).

Darn-it, beat me to that. But it's very much a how do you quickly tell what is 'good' and what is 'bad' kind of thing.

Isn't it obvious as to how they can proceed? Just disable file sharing. It is simple as that. All these "legit" customers need to do is retrieve their files and then find another place to store them. That's all. So what if someone who uploaded stuff that he shouldn't have shared in the first place gets access to those files again? Big effing deal. Just disable file sharing and the problem is solved.